Tighten the ship

Sunday

Good police work doesn’t end with the chase. After identifying and arresting criminal suspects, law enforcement officers must be thorough in interrogating and processing defendants.

It’s not just about respecting defendants’ rights, although that is paramount. It’s also about not compromising the prosecution. You don’t want a guilty person to go free because of unforced errors.

The Bay County Sheriff’s Office has been a little shaky in that area recently.

Judge James Fensom last week threw out the confession of Bryan Keith Castleman, who is charged with the murder of his wife and father-in-law, after ruling that BCSO investigators violated the defendant’s Miranda rights during several interrogations. According to testimony, when Castleman said “I’m talking to my attorney,” Sgt. Stephen Jencks got up and left the interrogation room to write a report that said the interview ended when Castleman invoked his right to an attorney. Investigator Jeff Haire, though, stayed behind and continued to question Castleman, who later confessed to the killings.

Haire said he was preoccupied with a text message and didn’t catch Castleman’s assertion of his Miranda rights. However, Fensom watched video of the interrogation and determined that Haire did understand that Castleman had invoked his right to remain silent. The judge said there was “nothing ambiguous” about the defendant’s assertion.

That’s sloppy police work that in some situations could prove costly. The BCSO, however, doesn’t believe Fensom’s action will “cripple” its case. This isn’t the first time Fensom and the BCSO have tangled. In April, the judge dismissed a case against a defendant arrested on marijuana charges after ruling that authorities had illegally placed a GPS tracking device on the suspect’s car. Fensom issued a blistering opinion of deputies’ conduct, calling it “shocking” and “disturbing.”

“Throughout its entire investigation in this case,” Fensom wrote, “law enforcement has shown a pattern of breaching known duties in furtherance of its ulterior motive in securing the Defendant’s conviction, as well as clear intent to mislead and deceive not only the Defendant, but also the State.”

In July, Public Defender Kim Dowgul (who also represents Castleman) filed a motion on behalf of accused murderer Philip Brock, arguing a judge should throw out evidence and statements Brock made before he was arrested because he was denied a lawyer. According to Dowgul’s motion, Brock told her BCSO Capt. Jimmy Stanford hit him during portions of the interrogation.

Stanford vehemently denies the allegation. Indeed, the BCSO was so incensed by the accusation that it took to its Facebook page to accuse Dowgul of having a “vendetta” against law enforcement.

The only reason Brock could even remotely plausibly make that claim is because the interrogation was not video recorded, even though it took place in a room equipped with functioning recording equipment. Thus it’s his word against the BCSO’s.

Law enforcement has an impressive track record of winning those disputes over trustworthiness, especially absent physical evidence such as injuries to the suspect. Still, why take the chance? Why not record every interrogation, especially in murder cases?

Video can benefit law enforcement in more ways than it can harm it. It can provide evidence that absolves officers of misconduct, and it can serve as a deterrent to those who might consider trying to get away with something. Video of officers acting professionally can only bolster the public’s trust in their performance.

Police are human, and they sometimes make unintentional mistakes. They also are entrusted with tremendous power and therefore should be held to high standards. Cutting corners and being too loose with something as fundamental as Miranda rights are unacceptable errors that not only erode public confidence. They threaten to undermine otherwise solid police work. Sheriff Frank McKeithen must ensure there is no slack in his employees’ conduct.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.